The language and arguments in the Supreme Court’s seismic slap down of Donald Trump’s signature tariff declarations are highly technical.
But the meaning for anyone not Donald Trump cannot be mistaken. Trump overstepped in ignoring Congress to set a new set of sales taxes called tariffs, interpreting presidential power in a way that the court could not stomach.
Trump vowed to evade the court’s ruling, trashing the justices who opposed him, and refusing to see that this was about a Constitutional line rather than about his ability to act unilaterally.
Finally, the court noticed that Trump thinks himself the center of a universe accountable to no one and must come to Congress for tax policy.
Still, the 6-3 decision on behalf of several businesses who sued over misuse of emergency powers likely will carry more political punch than any immediate change in prices or Trump arbitrariness on import costs.
Trump said he was “deeply disappointed” in the decision, saying he was “ashamed” of justices ruling against him, calling them unpatriotic and open to “foreign” influence. He insisted that he was issuing justification of executive orders to shift existing tariffs to other relevant statues. Trump insisted on viewing the whole issue as one about U.S. economic and diplomatic leverage with other countries, and not about separation of powers. Trump concluded there is now “certainty” about the rightness of tariffs, misstating what the decision found.
In Trump’s interpretation, he still has sweeping tariff powers despite the court decision – not acknowledging that tariffs are taxes paid by Americans. Indeed, the court said it was not ruling on tariff powers not argued in this case.
The Ripples
The decision is sure to spread global chaotic responses about the practical details – and more lawsuits. For businesses large and small that need certainty for planning months ahead, the welcome news that Trump’s tariffs are illegal may sound good today – but without a plan for what’s ahead.
The six justices voting to halt tariffs may think they kept the issue as narrow as possible, but the practical details will echo globally and repeatedly. It was only in the dissent from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, that the court acknowledged that the practical impact of unraveling tariffs would be a “mess.”
In fact, the majority opinion spelled out no details about what is supposed to happen next, and specifically whether refunds are in order and to whom. Even if a business were to receive a refund, how would that come to you and me?
If you think there will be a check in the mail with the extra couple thousand dollars your household was forced to pay for imported goods from wine and coffee to cars and appliances, forget it. So too for small businesses backed into having to raise prices to account for tariffs or manufacturers whose supply lines have been disrupted or companies overseas forced to find new markets.
The Trump administration already had indicated that it will find more legally acceptable means to address what it sees as unfair trade deficits with different countries.
Inside The Decision
At least, the decision squashed one repeated Trump lie: The decision makes clear that tariffs are a tax paid by Americans on every imported shirt and fruit, not some punishing fee paid by foreign governments.
Given the sheer magnitude of the effects of halting Trump’s central economic plank, the first order of business will focus on how Trump resets. Too many businesses in the U.S. and abroad need clarity, and Trump needs to save political face.
If Trump resorts to more legally acceptable ways that still avoid Congress and insist that only he can set fees on imports, he will pay a political price payable in November. If he goes to Congress now basically to ask for the permission he skipped earlier, he will face bipartisan questions about the arbitrariness with which he has dealt tariffs almost at random.
Trump has one rule: Trump decides. The rest of the world has another, based on consistency and law.
Much of the language of the decision and dissent center on phrasing in the emergency economic powers act known as IEEPA that allows the president to “regulate . . . importation” and whether tariffs are taxes. They are filled with case law and historical references on each side, but, of course, are light on detailing just how arbitrary Trump has been about setting differing tariff rates based on some nation’s domestic politics, like Brazil, or Trump’s perception of tone of expressed cooperation, like Canada or Switzerland.
For Trump critics, yesterday felt a breakthrough in the court’s continuing support for growing presidential powers in dismantling federal agencies, in dismissals of federal employees, in ignoring congressional limits on spending in specific ways. As a vote of confidence in separation of powers for taxation, there even was a hope that a moribund Congress could stand up and demand its say not only about taxes and tariffs, but on ICE tactics, the release of Epstein documents, White House grift allegations, on education, environment and health policies.
That this court, with its right-leaning majority, could support a clear Constitutional provision felt like a stand against authoritarian rule.
DEMOCRACY NEEDS A STRONG INDEPENDENT PRESS. PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING TO OUR NONPROFIT EFFORTS.
